DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Did People Go to War in 1642? > 1640-42

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Did People Go to War in 1642? > 1640-42 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 Why did people go to war in 1642? Case study 2: 1640-42 The Civil War broke out in 1642, but there were many years of tension leading up to this event. How does this selection of sources from 1640-42 help us to understand why people went to war? Petition from Report of disputes Document on the citizens of between Charles & the wishes of London, 1640 Parliament Parliament, 1640 Images from Report of Report of the trial of the rebellion in tensions in Earl of Ireland, 1641 the country, Strafford 1642 Pamphlet from Payments to Petition from the Parliament, help Charles I’s confused gentry June 1642 armies, 1642 of Somerset http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 1 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 Case study 2: 1640-42 - Source 1 A petition from the citizens of London, September 1640 (John Rushworth, Historical Collections, Vol III, 1639-1640, p.1263. Published in London, 1680-1701) What is this source? This petition was sent to Charles I on 24 September 1640. Petitions were a way for Parliament or the citizens of a town to show that they were unhappy about something. Charles ruled his kingdom without calling Parliament from 1629-40. During this period (called the Personal Rule) he brought in many changes. The citizens of London who sent this petition were unhappy with those changes. What’s the background to this source? During the 1630s Charles tried rule the country without calling Parliament. This led to problems. • Monarchs often ran out of money in the 1600s. When they needed more, they asked Parliament to agree to new taxes. Charles tried to raise money without a Parliament. He used taxes like ‘ship money’. He sold monopolies and patents to merchants, giving them total control of particular trades and stopping other people making a living in these trades. • People could be fined or jailed for not paying Charles’s taxes. Charles also treated opponents of his policies harshly. They could be fined, arrested or tortured. This was often done with no trial at all, or in a special court called the Star Chamber. The Star Chamber usually did what Charles wanted. • Charles also brought in many changes to the church. His religious policies led to a rebellion in Scotland in 1638. Charles tried to crush it, but he was very short of money to pay for the army he needed. • By 1640 he was short of men, ships, money and supplies. He called a Parliament in April 1640 to ask for the money he needed, but he dissolved it again when MPs criticised aspects of his rule. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 2 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 It’s worth knowing that … London was by far the biggest city in the country in the 1600s, just like today. As a result, London paid a lot of taxes, collected in money and in goods. It was a rich and important city. The citizens of London were also more politically active than any other part of the country and radical (wanting big changes). This helps to explain why the city sent several petitions to Charles during this period. London had more Protestant hardliners (Puritans) than other parts of the country. It is not surprising that London took the side of Parliament once war broke out in 1642. Your turn: What can we learn from this source? 1. What were the people of London complaining about? 2. Is it possible to tell from this document which issues caused the greatest concern? 3. Does this source give us any clues about why the kingdom went to war in 1642? http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 3 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 Source 1 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 4 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 5 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 Case study 2: 1640-42 - Source 2 Report of disputes between Charles and Parliament in early 1640 (Catalogue ref: SP 16/452/33) What is this source? This is an extract from a letter written by the Earl of Northumberland to Viscount Conway in May 1640. The writer was a member of Charles I’s army in the north of England facing the Scots. He was writing a private letter to a member of his family. What’s the background to this source? Charles I managed to rule his kingdom without calling Parliament from 1629- 40. However, by 1640 he was desperate for money. He was facing a rebellion in Scotland and needed to pay more soldiers to fight the rebels. He was forced to call Parliament to try and get MPs to agree to new taxes to raise the money. During the Personal Rule of 1629-40, Charles brought in many measures to raise money without having to ask Parliament. The most unpopular was ‘ship money’, a kind of tax. Charles also forced many towns and villages to provide soldiers, plus equipment for his troops. On top of this, Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, brought in changes to the Church of England. Many people disliked these changes. It’s worth knowing that … There were two Parliaments in 1640. The Short Parliament only lasted a few weeks in early 1640. Then Charles ended it (as mentioned in this source). By November Charles was forced to call another Parliament, the Long Parliament. Both Parliaments had many complaints about different aspects of Charles’s Personal Rule. On the whole, MPs were united in opposing Charles’s policies. Some were concerned about religion. Others were concerned about taxes. Others were concerned about Charles ignoring the law. However, MPs disagreed about how far they could argue with the king. They were still http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 6 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 loyal to Charles as king even though they were unhappy about some of his actions. Your turn: What can we learn from this source? 1. What did Charles offer the MPs? 2. How did they react? 3. What were the main concerns of the MPs? 4. Does this source suggest that relations between Charles and Parliament were good or bad? 5. Does the writer criticise MPs in any way? 6. Does this source give us any clues about why the kingdom went to war in 1642? http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 7 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 Source 2 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 8 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 Case study 2: 1640-42 - Source 3 A document setting out the wishes of Parliament, December 1640 (Catalogue ref: SP 16/474/8) What is this source? This source set out clearly what MPs thought the powers of Parliament should be. For example, the first point in the document says that laws made by Parliament also apply to the courts of justice, including the Star Chamber. The Star Chamber was the meeting place in the Palace of Westminster of the King’s councillors. There they could hold court cases separately from the common-law courts. Charles used this court as a means to get his own way in law, especially over church matters, until Parliament finally put a stop to it in 1641. What’s the background to this source? Charles I managed to rule his kingdom without calling Parliament from 1629- 40. During that time he introduced changes to the church. He also raised money through new taxes that were not approved by Parliament. However, by 1640 he needed more money to fight a war against the Scots. He was forced to call a Parliament. In December 1640 most MPs were moderates (not very extreme in their ideas). However, there were some MPs who were bitter critics of Charles and his policies. They were probably the men behind this document. Above all, the aim of these proposals was to make sure that Charles would never again be able to rule as he had done in the period 1629-40. It’s worth knowing that … There were two Parliaments in 1640. The Short Parliament only lasted a few weeks in early 1640. Then Charles ended it. By November Charles was forced to call another Parliament, the Long Parliament. Both Parliaments had many complaints about different aspects of the king’s Personal Rule. The MPs were not completely united in their concerns. Some were concerned about religion. Others were concerned about taxes. Others were worried about Charles ignoring the law. MPs also disagreed about http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 9 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 how far they could argue with the king. They were still loyal to Charles, even though they were unhappy about his actions. Your turn: What can we learn from this source? 1. What were the demands of the MPs? 2. Does this source suggest that relations between Charles and Parliament were good or bad? 3. Does this speech seem more or less respectful towards Charles than other sources in this case study? 4. Does this source give us any clues about why the kingdom went to war in 1642? Source 3 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 10 Civil War > Why did people go to war in 1642? > 1640-42 Case study 2: 1640-42 - Source 4 Images from the trial of Thomas Wentworth, the Earl of Strafford (4a: John Rushworth, The Trial of Thomas Earl of Strafford.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UC Riverside UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Riverside UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Mobilizing the Metropolis: Politics, Plots and Propaganda in Civil War London, 1642-1644 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3gh4h08w Author Downs, Jordan Publication Date 2015 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Mobilizing the Metropolis: Politics, Plots and Propaganda in Civil War London, 1642-1644 A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History by Jordan Swan Downs December 2015 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Thomas Cogswell, Chairperson Dr. Jonathan Eacott Dr. Randolph Head Dr. J. Sears McGee Copyright by Jordan Swan Downs 2015 The Dissertation of Jordan Swan Downs is approved: ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside Acknowledgements I wish to express my gratitude to all of the people who have helped me to complete this dissertation. This project was made possible due to generous financial support form the History Department at UC Riverside and the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. Other financial support came from the William Andrew’s Clark Memorial Library, the Huntington Library, the Institute of Historical Research in London, and the Santa Barbara Scholarship Foundation. Original material from this dissertation was published by Cambridge University Press in volume 57 of The Historical Journal as “The Curse of Meroz and the English Civil War” (June, 2014). Many librarians have helped me to navigate archives on both sides of the Atlantic. I am especially grateful to those from London’s livery companies, the London Metropolitan Archives, the Guildhall Library, the National Archives, and the British Library, the Bodleian, the Huntington and the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library.
    [Show full text]
  • London and Middlesex in the 1660S Introduction: the Early Modern
    London and Middlesex in the 1660s Introduction: The early modern metropolis first comes into sharp visual focus in the middle of the seventeenth century, for a number of reasons. Most obviously this is the period when Wenceslas Hollar was depicting the capital and its inhabitants, with views of Covent Garden, the Royal Exchange, London women, his great panoramic view from Milbank to Greenwich, and his vignettes of palaces and country-houses in the environs. His oblique birds-eye map- view of Drury Lane and Covent Garden around 1660 offers an extraordinary level of detail of the streetscape and architectural texture of the area, from great mansions to modest cottages, while the map of the burnt city he issued shortly after the Fire of 1666 preserves a record of the medieval street-plan, dotted with churches and public buildings, as well as giving a glimpse of the unburned areas.1 Although the Fire destroyed most of the historic core of London, the need to rebuild the burnt city generated numerous surveys, plans, and written accounts of individual properties, and stimulated the production of a new and large-scale map of the city in 1676.2 Late-seventeenth-century maps of London included more of the spreading suburbs, east and west, while outer Middlesex was covered in rather less detail by county maps such as that of 1667, published by Richard Blome [Fig. 5]. In addition to the visual representations of mid-seventeenth-century London, a wider range of documentary sources for the city and its people becomes available to the historian.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Political Poems Ca. 1640
    Studies in English Volume 1 Article 13 1960 Notes on Political Poems ca. 1640 Charles L. Hamilton University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/ms_studies_eng Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons Recommended Citation Hamilton, Charles L. (1960) "Notes on Political Poems ca. 1640," Studies in English: Vol. 1 , Article 13. Available at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/ms_studies_eng/vol1/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the English at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studies in English by an authorized editor of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hamilton: Notes on Political Poems Notes on Political Poems, c. 1640 Charles L. Hamilton HET CIVILwars in England and Scotland during the seventeenth century produced a wealth of popular literature. Some of it has permanent literary merit, but a large share of the popular creations, especially of the poetry, was little more than bad doggerel. Even so, one little-known and two unpublished poems such as the following are important as a guide to public opinion. From the period of the Bishops’ Wars (1638-40) the Scottish Covenanters repeatedly urged the English to abolish episcopacy and to enter a religious union with them.1 The following poem, written very likely on the eve of the meeting of the Long Parliament, exem­ plifies the Scottish feeling very clearly: Oyes, Oyes do I Cry The Bishops’ Bridles Will ye Buy2 Since Bishops first began to ride, In state so near the crown They have been aye puffed up with pride And ride with great renown.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 74 Issue 3 April 2021 Article 5 4-2021 Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority Christian R. Burset Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Judges Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Christian R. Burset, Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority, 74 Vanderbilt Law Review 621 (2021) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol74/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority Christian R. Burset* The prohibition against advisory opinions is fundamental to our understanding of federal judicial power, but we have misunderstood its origins. Discussions of the doctrine begin not with a constitutional text or even a court case, but a letter in which the Jay Court rejected President Washington’s request for legal advice. Courts and scholars have offered a variety of explanations for the Jay Court’s behavior. But they all depict the earliest Justices as responding to uniquely American concerns about advisory opinions. This Article offers a different explanation. Drawing on previously untapped archival sources, it shows that judges throughout the anglophone world—not only in the United States but also in England and British India— became opposed to advisory opinions in the second half of the eighteenth century. The death of advisory opinions was a global phenomenon, rooted in a period of anxiety about common-law authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did Britain Become a Republic? > New Government
    Civil War > Why did Britain become a republic? > New government Why did Britain become a republic? Case study 2: New government Even today many people are not aware that Britain was ever a republic. After Charles I was put to death in 1649, a monarch no longer led the country. Instead people dreamed up ideas and made plans for a different form of government. Find out more from these documents about what happened next. Report on the An account of the Poem on the arrest of setting up of the new situation in Levellers, 1649 Commonwealth England, 1649 Portrait & symbols of Cromwell at the The setting up of Cromwell & the Battle of the Instrument Commonwealth Worcester, 1651 of Government http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 1 Civil War > Why did Britain become a republic? > New government Case study 2: New government - Source 1 A report on the arrest of some Levellers, 29 March 1649 (Catalogue ref: SP 25/62, pp.134-5) What is this source? This is a report from a committee of MPs to Parliament. It explains their actions against the leaders of the Levellers. One of the men they arrested was John Lilburne, a key figure in the Leveller movement. What’s the background to this source? Before the war of the 1640s it was difficult and dangerous to come up with new ideas and try to publish them. However, during the Civil War censorship was not strongly enforced. Many political groups emerged with new ideas at this time. One of the most radical (extreme) groups was the Levellers.
    [Show full text]
  • Bills of Attainder
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 2016 Bills of Attainder Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 767 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE BILLS OF ATTAINDER Matthew Steilen* ABSTRACT What are bills of attainder? The traditional view is that bills of attainder are legislation that punishes an individual without judicial process. The Bill of Attainder Clause in Article I, Section 9 prohibits the Congress from passing such bills. But what about the President? The traditional view would seem to rule out application of the Clause to the President (acting without Congress) and to executive agencies, since neither passes bills. This Article aims to bring historical evidence to bear on the question of the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. The argument of the Article is that bills of attainder are best understood as a summary form of legal process, rather than a legislative act. This argument is based on a detailed historical reconstruction of English and early American practices, beginning with a study of the medieval Parliament rolls, year books, and other late medieval English texts, and early modern parliamentary diaries and journals covering the attainders of Elizabeth Barton under Henry VIII and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, under Charles I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Providence Island Company on 28Th September 1629 Letters Of
    The Providence Island Company On 28th September 1629 letters of marque were issued for an expedition to be mounted to St Catalina, an island in the Caribbean (later to be renamed Providence Island). Subscriptions were invited from Lord Saye's circle of powerful political and business friends, who were opposed to the arbitrary rule of the king, for twenty shares at £200 per head. In the summer of 1630 the first meeting of shareholders was held in Brooke House, Holborn, London (held there to avoid the plague in the country). On 4th December a patent was sealed granting the formal incorporation of the splendidly named company of 'The Governor and Company of Adventurers of the City of Westminster for the Plantation of the Islands of Providence, Henrietta and adjacent islands laying upon the coast of America'; known as 'The Providence Island Company'. The total cost of the Patent and fees was £60. The name Providence had great significance at that time; the Adventurers (men who advanced venture capital) believed they were responding to divine will in founding the settlement. They were casting themselves on God's providence. The project could only succeed with God's approval.4 St Catalina, as the Spanish called the island, was situated in the south-west corner of the Caribbean, off the coast of Nicaragua; it is six miles long by four wide and was considered, in the seventeenth century, to be the choicest of the Caribbean islands. It had an equable climate, was fertile and salubrious; with plenty of water. It was easily fortified and there were no venomous creatures.
    [Show full text]
  • A-Level History, HIS1D: Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 1603-1702 Absolutism Challenged: Britain 1603-49 Section 2: Revolution 1629-1649
    A-Level History, HIS1D: Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 1603-1702 Absolutism Challenged: Britain 1603-49 Section 2: Revolution 1629-1649. Part 1: 1629-1642 KEY TOPIC AREAS 1629-42: KEY TOPIC AREAS 1629-42: Divisions over Religion: Arminianism and Laudianism; Puritanism, and Millenarianism Political divisions in Personal rule: Short Parliament • Arminianism and Laudianism • The Short Parliament • Puritanism • Continued Opposition in 1640 • The emergence of Millenarianism Political divisions • The Long Parliament. Political divisions in Personal rule: Finance • The leadership and importance of John Pym. • Fiscal policy used in Personal rule Causes of the English Civil War • The opposition that it caused • Events culminating in the outbreak of the Civil War. Political divisions in Personal rule: Scotland • Policies in Scotland • The Crisis of 1637-42 • The extent of Opposition Political divisions in Personal rule: Ireland • Policies in Ireland • The Crisis of 1637-42 • The extent of Opposition A-Level History, HIS1D: Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 1603-1702 Absolutism Challenged: Britain 1603-49 Section 2: Revolution 1629-1649. Part 1: 1629-1642 KEY WORDS KEY INDIVIDUALS Articles of Perth: had been forced through the Scottish Kirk in 1618. They were a set of Charles Stuart: ruled as Charles I 1625-1649 commands outlining religious practices. To Presbyterians, the commands seemed like William Laud: a key Arminian cleric who became the Archbishop of Canterbury in Catholicism 1633 and made changes to the Anglican Church Bill of Attainder: medieval method which allowed anyone who was seen as a threat to the Henrietta Maria: Catholic wife of Charles I, she aroused suspicion of a Catholic state t be removed by Parliament without formal trial conversion of the King and the court Book of Sports: originally produced by James in 1618.
    [Show full text]
  • I the Committee of Safety
    .· (~. ll II Ii ) ' THE COMMITTEE OF SAFETY. 11 "A thesis submitted to the ,, faculty of the Graduate School of the University of • Minnesota by Etheleen Frances ;emp in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ii degree of Master of Arts, May 5, 1911. 1;1 I Ii II Ii 11 ' :S I:BLI OGRAPHY. l. Source Material 1. Journals of the House of Lords, vol. V and VI. Journals of the House of Commons, vol. II and III. These contain the greater portion of the material on the Committee of Safety. 2. Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. London, 1874 etc. These volumes contain here and there a com­ munication to or from the Committee of Safety but have much less material that might be expected. References found:- 4th Report p 262. 5th Report pp. 48, 54, 56, 63, 65, 69, 80, 107, 114. 7th Report pp. 550-588. 10th Report App. 6 pp. 87-88. 13th Report App. 1 p. 104. 3. Calendar of State Papers. Domestic 1641-1644 London, 1887-8 lla.ny order for military supplies are given in the State Papers but not in full. 4. Rushworth,John, Historical collections, 8 vol. London, 1682-1701. Compilation of declarations and proclamations. Vol. 3 and 7 contain material on the Committee. They contain valuable proclamations of the King which cannot be found elsewhere. 5. Somers, Lord. Tracts, 13 vol. London, 1809-1815. Has several remonstrances of value. ){) 1 ~ ( ' ,.... 6. Whitacre. Diary Add. M S S 31, 116, fol. Had notes from first six months of the Committee period especially.
    [Show full text]
  • Lives of Eminent Serjeants
    00024288 i ' 1 I the I I A siatic Society of Bombay | Towf-n MaM, Bombay, ® Digitized with financial assistance from the Government of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2016 LIVES OF EMINENT SERJEANTS-AT-LAW / r ' ‘ A t, ■*< (■; 1' ■ ■ > 1 \\ \ ' '-'’1'- l ;r L -*y ’i« v_ *■ ' y LIVES EMINENT 8ERJEANT8-AT-LAW OP THE ENGLISH BAB. BY HUMPHRY WILLIAM WOOLRYCH. Serjeant-at-Lavt. 24288 — IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II. ■ ■■] LONDON: W m . h . ALLEN & CO., 13, WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. S.W. 1869. t’j'-o // ,v 00024288 00024288 L0KD0N!_L swx8 & s, Alo(orgate Street. LIVES OF EMINENT SERJEANTS. THE DARNALS. W hether Darnal, Darnel, or DameU, or even Darnall, according to various readings, these lawyers were of high promise. The elder was spoken of in 1700, amongst other gossip, by Luttrell, as the new Baron of the Exchequer, and actually, though incorrectly, named by him as such.* A classical pim is extant upon the name. Kett, or Horse Kett, as he was called at Oxford, from the resemblance which his head bore to that animal, was a master of the schools at Oxfoi’d, and with him was Mr. Dai’nell. The following line was immediately applied to these gentlemen:— “ Infclix Lolium, et steriles dominantur avenffi.” “ Oats and Davnol choke the rising corn.”’ Or rather, according to Covington, nascimtur. “ Nas- 1 “ Diary,’* voL iv. pp. 652, 653. Sir Salathiol Lovol, Recorclor of London, got the vacant place, '' Dryden*3 “ Pastorals," vol. v. p. 56.—“ Virg. Eclog.,*’ v. 37- yoL . II. 1 Limes OF EMPBNT SBHJEAKTS. «uiii'tur,” he observes, is fouaad:^ ¿¡H th e M SS.” A nd ’ he dhsthigudshes the ^vord “dornikiantur'' iaa th e “ dreorgÌGS,.” -where exactly the sa®ae passage appears, ■ b y i^eferriag th e ikist to“ Weeds giiow higdmongst th e Gora,” whereas, here the “ weeds are ^?owipgvmtmà of baadey.” * tS© ia Job: Goekle or darabl iastead o i barley.
    [Show full text]
  • Topic Key Foci Suggested Tasks/ Homework Information the Political
    Topic Key Foci Suggested Tasks/ Homework Information The Political Nation and the social What was the Political Nation? Mind map THE POLITICAL NATION: The Pages 1-8 basis of power Social basis of power Monarch, Basis of Power, Political Importance of land ownership and rival forms of Nation Revision Guide Page 6 wealth James I and Charles I: character, Characters of James and Charles Produce a table showing the Pages 9-16 court and favourites Shape and style of monarchies- each monarchs views differences in James and Charles’ view Favourites especially Buckingham on monarchy Revision Guide Pages 7-9 19. Crown and Political Nation, 1604-1640 The finances of the Crown and Financial weaknesses of the Crown- causes Construct a timeline from 1603-1629 Pages 17-26 attempts at reform Attempts to reform and strengthen royal finances that shows all attempts by both kings during James’ reign to reform and improve crown finances- Revision Guide Pages 10-13 Great Contract colour code successes in green and Attempts to reform and strengthen royal finances failures in red during Charles reign Forced Loan Religion and religious divisions Challenges to James’ church from Catholics Mind map JAMES I AND RELIGION: Pages 27-36 Challenges to James’ church from Puritans Puritans, Scottish Kirk, Catholics Hampton Court Conference Revision Guide Pages 14-17 Bancroft’s Canons Mind map RELIGIOUS ISSUES UNDER Development of Arminianism CHARLES: Charles’ religious views, 18. Street Wars of Religion: Puritans and Charles’ favouring of Arminianism
    [Show full text]
  • The First Green Jackets? by Roy Bailey
    The First Green Jackets? by Roy Bailey All the histories of the former regiments which make up the Royal Green Jackets tell us that they were formed in the middle to later years of the 18th century. As a new recruit to the 1st Bn. the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry (43rd & 52nd) in late 1954, I was not only trained to march at 140 paces to the minute and to carry my rifle at the trail, but I was also instilled with a pride in the regiment’s long and illustrious history. Indeed, I still have my copy of Col. Crosse’s A Short History… for the Young Soldiers of the Regiment, which was issued to all recruits, together with the programme of the Ceremonial Parade held at Osnabrück in October 1955 to mark the bicentenary of the 52nd. If my memory serves me correctly at a distance of nearly half a century, I was a member of the No. 1 (Escort) Company under Major Dennis Fox that day. But over the past few years I have often wondered if the spiritual and territorial origins of the Oxford and Bucks don’t go back a lot further - to the time of the English Civil War. As a boy I was proud of the fact that I was born and brought up in Buckinghamshire, and learned to cherish the history and traditions of that county. Listening to an episode of ‘Children’s Hour’ at the age of 9, I learned of a fellow countryman from the 17th century whom I have studied and admired ever since.
    [Show full text]